Yea, I get mixed up between the two different SLF4J components all the time. If all the bridges were actually called "bridge," it would be way less confusing for me. If it's confusing for me and it's confusing for Gary, you know it's going to be confusing for the users.
Nick On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > I also find the inconsistency in naming confusing. I always have to read the > description to remind myself what direction a module follows. > > Gary > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Nick Williams > <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed, on all counts. > > Nick > > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > >> Currently we have three different names for things that provide a >> bridge/adapter from other logging APIs to the Log4j2 implementation: >> (Commons Logging) Bridge, (Log4j 1.2) API, and (SLF4J) Binding. >> >> Would it be a good idea to call them all "Bridge"? >> >> On the web site, components would then become: >> Commons Logging Bridge, Log4j 1.2 Bridge, and SLF4J Bridge. >> >> The jar files would become: >> log4j-jcl-bridge-2.0.jar >> log4j-1.2-api-bridge-2.0.jar >> log4j-slf4j-bridge-2.0.jar >> >> I would especially like to rename log4j-1.2-api-2.0.jar so we only have one >> jar with "api" in the name. >> >> Thoughts? > > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
